Dear Editor:
I read your comparison of Reagan and Bush with some interest,
Mr. Mitchell. There’s a story I’d like to share with you. Maybe
it’s true and maybe it ain’t.
Dear Editor:
I read your comparison of Reagan and Bush with some interest, Mr. Mitchell. There’s a story I’d like to share with you. Maybe it’s true and maybe it ain’t.
From a Soviet point of view, the United States had ineffective foreign policy from about 1960 to 1980. A string of presidents lost wars, cut military and economic strength, and allowed the Soviets to get away with pretty much whatever they wanted anywhere in the world. Around 1970, the U.S. started to beg for detente and an opportunity to reduce its nuclear capability; this from a nation whose treaty obligations to defend Europe depended on first use of nuclear weapons. To men reared in the realpolitik of the USSR, the policy reeked of fear and weakness; it was like blood in the water to the communists.
During the SALT I talks the Soviets refused to provide information regarding their weapons; negotiations were based on US intelligence. One of the Soviet generals figured out how the intelligence was obtained and, consequently, how to fool the CIA. The USSR started building up their nuclear forces in secret until, by the late 1970’s, they had roughly twice the force levels that the US thought they did and a clear advantage in the arms race.
Emboldened, Soviet officers began planning nuclear war against the United States with every expectation that they were going to execute that plan.
Reagan entered office focused on the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War. He built up military strength and faked the Star Wars project to shake their confidence, supported insurgents to undermine their allies, and bribed Saudi Arabia and South Africa to cut world prices for oil and gold to disrupt their trade balance.
Reagan’s policies worked; he won. While winning, he endured a gauntlet of insults, hatred, and militant opposition that makes the hysterical anti-Bush tirades seem tepid from domestic liberals who, like you Mr. Mitchell, did not understand what was happening and what was at stake.
A few comments on your analysis:
As a lawyer, you must be as aware as I am that both governor and president are only advisors in the budget process. Taxation and spending policies are set by the legislatures. Please explain why your charge that Reagan was responsible for operating deficits or spending expansion is not a bald-faced lie.
Congress was unable to fund the relatively minor but vital Reagan military expansion without huge operating deficits. Have you ever considered what would happen if we had to expand the military by a factor of 10 to 15 times as we did in WWII? In my opinion, the war-fighting capability of the United States is about a quarter of what it was in 1941.
Reading your analysis of politics is like reading economic and financial analyses by socialists; they are philosophically incapable of understanding the subject. Mr. Mitchell, you will never be able to understand the actions of people, like Reagan or, possibly, Bush, whose first priority is the welfare of this nation.
Stuart Allen, Gilroy
Submitted Monday, June 21 to ed****@****ic.com
